General Question

What are your views on the death penalty?

70 Answers

Depend on the cruelty of the crimes commited, but I guess death penalty is a form of escaping for the criminal, nothing works better than life in prision with hard labour included, just to make you think about all the pain you caused…

@fabulous
Two wrongs don’t make a right, yes… I’m not a very religious person, but I think no person has the right to take the life of another, but, it should be punished. As human beigns, we can make a mistake and judge an innocent, then death penalty is way over the top.

@lefteh, i think labeling it as cruel is wrong. you must take into consideration that if someone kills someone else is it “cruel” for them to die to. i think not. i think that if someone is that wrong to kill someone else (Iimiting out vehicular manslaugher like in an accident, or in self defense, etc.) then that person deserves to die too

it’s a symbol of our cultural belief in punishment instead of rehabilitation. so is prison. in my opinion it’s ridiculous, destructive rather than constructive. why is a murderer’s life worth less than someone else’s?

The death penalty’s primary purpose is to be a deterrent to people who would commit crimes worthy of such a punishment. The idea is that someone who would commit such a crime (let’s say, murder) would stop before the act and say to him/herself “I should not do this because if I do, I will be put to death.” But this doesn’t happen. In truth, the death penalty is no more a deterrent than life imprisonment. The only reason it ever came to be was to be more of a deterrent than life imprisonment. Because it does not do what it is designed to, there is no reason to have it. Additionally, there are too many cases where there is doubt about the person’s guilt in the crime, and for these reasons, I am against it.

I think a sentence of life at hard labor would be more of a deterrence than the death penalty. Unfortunately that has been deemed “cruel”. Making someone sit on their ass in prison for the rest of their life doesn’t seem like much of a deterrent to me.

the death penalty is being in challenged in some states by doctors who refuse to administer lethal injections. this is a compelling argument against the death penalty that has nothing to do with its ethical pros and cons.

A murderers life is not worth a penny. If you kill some one in the first degree and are guilty of it then you deserve to die as well.
If you murder someone then you should be killed. final end of story.
I am not talking about accidental death. I am refering to MURDER!

The death penalty is more expensive to the state (and thus citizens) than life in prison. The appeals process and all the extra work that goes into making “extra sure” the individual is really guilty, actually costs more money than just locking them up.

But that’s not really the point. It’s always funny to me that people can make a statement like “if you murder someone then you should be killed. final end of story”. If murder is so essential in its wrongness then why is the state murdering people exempt from that moral absolutism? Capital punishment is murder. It’s not war. It’s not self-defense. It’s murder. When you make absolute statements about the wrongness of murder, you’re failing logically (and in moral coherence) when you say the death penalty is a reasonable response.

@Vectorul and @waterskier2007: You seem to be neglecting the point johnpowell made which is that while you may believe (incorrectly in my opinion, I might add) that a murderers life is ‘not worth a penny’ how do you justify the fact that the system in place in some American states kills people who are not guilty of crimes?

You both seem to be forgetting the fact that at the end of the day the only purpose that killing a prisoner has is an emotional one, people who kill other people don’t ‘deserve’ to die, no one deserves anything because ‘deserve’ implies that there is some kind of tally board going on every person to see when they ought to be killed. Execution developed because it was an effective way of removing dissenting individuals (or groups) in society. Given the general stability of our society and the ability for us to treat murderers in a less barbaric way, do you not think that we should choose this option?

If you do believe that people ‘deserve’ to be killed for murdering another person, because of some divine tally board which commands it, let that person be judged before their god, not judged (in some cases unfairly) by you and the people who run your justice system.

The death penalty doesn’t leave any room for accidents, if someone isn’t who you think they are, or didn’t do what they were convicted of, what can people do? Are you going to be the person who tells that person’s family that an incompetent justice system murdered a man? Can you justify what happens to innocent people who are wrongfully accused and killed as something other than murder?

@zom123: if my own daughter caused the same type of horror and tragic loss to someone else and their family, I would accept her punishment . The individual who did this to my family, also did it to 6 more families. He deserved the punishment he received.

I sympathize with your loss, and I also agree that he deserved his punishment.
Nonetheless, the fact that I asserted earlier remains: due to the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States capital punishment is illegal.

Its one thing to tell someone how to raise their child, but totally different when you have your own. I respect everyone’s feelings. When something like this happens, it changes you. He was caught, and he admitted his guilt. He never was sorry, ever. If something happened like this to you, you might see things differently. You never know for sure what you will feel until it happens to you, which I hope never does.

@ lefteh, its not illegal, you are still referring to “cruel and unusual punishment” making it illegal, but thats where ur wrong, the cruel/unusualness (sorry for lack of a better word) is evaluated based on the wrongs done by the person, yes, if someone steals a candy bar, capital punishment would be cruel and unusual, but for murder it is not a cruel or unusual punishment

Here is where we differ in constitutional theory.
In regards to this amendment, you are clearly an intentionalist and originalist whereas I take a textualist stance. You’re applying a case-by-case interpretation style, where you’re evaluating whether every individual punishment fits the crime. While this is okay in some situations, such as the Supreme Court case decided today regarding capital punishment for child rapists (now illegal, yay!), the amendment is not written as such.

It bans cruel and unusual punishment, period. The list of things more cruel than depriving one of his life is short.

@lefteh, i cant even believe you are saying that. do you realize how sick and insane child rapists are. they dont even deserve to be part of society and they should be killed for sure. i dont hesitate one bit when i say that

“they dont even deserve to be part of society”
It’s too bad we don’t have large, concrete buildings with bars over all the windows and patrolmen with guns designed specifically to remove offenders from society, isn’t it?

No one deserves to die at the hands of the State.
If not for his sake, for the sake of his peers.
Canada, Mexico, Australia, some of South America and Africa, and essentially all of Europe has figured that out. One can only hope our time will be soon.

I should move away because I think there is a great injustice being committed in this country?
This nation has a history of rising up and righting its wrongs. I have no reason to believe this one will play out any differently.

@lefteh Though I have a suspicion you’re either a law student or a practicing attorney :) , I agree with you 100%. I also want to commend you for your ability to remain rational and objective when debates become personal attacks. Speaking as someone who experienced childhood abuse, and someone who works, everyday, with survivors and abusers, at all stages of recovery, persecution of the perpetrators is not serving justice. Better we concentrate on healing the victims than vilifying those who were often victims themselves.

If we tell someone who is abused, and then goes on to abuse others, that their abuse cannot be considered a factor in determining their culpability, we invalidate all victims.
And if we are going to persecute victims, then what’s the point of caring about abuse in the first place?

The death penalty is a selfish, petty act. If it is done in a harmless way, the only people affected by someone being put to death are the relatives of the victims. They want that person to die because they are childish, no one should be allowed to enact the pain they felt onto another family. Isn’t America a predominantly Christian country? Where do these values come from if most of the developed world is a. less devout than America and b. not enforcing the death penalty?

The stare should never use it for any reason. I want my tax dollars to go for TV, Medical care, housing, heating, air, food and all that it takes to keep to most vicious criminals in a place where they can get college degrees and of course organ transplants.

waterskier – Confused? I want to use tax dollars for bad guys not people who can’t afford med insurance or education. In my childish and petty way I think these people should have a life style some can only dream of. Rape a kid and get free medical and food for the rest of your life. Keep them alive so they can live off tax payers. They live off the taxes paid by the victims relatives et al.

I think the whole “doesn’t deserve to live” angle is childish. It’s a child’s reaction to pain to insist that another feel pain as well. This isn’t self defense, it’s attempting to deal with pain (personal and social) by inflicting it on another, and rationalizing it as “just” or “deserved”.

It is emotionally immature because it doesn’t solve anything; the act of retribution doesn’t make pain go away. I think the feeling of triumph and “justice served” is just evidence of an even-more-damaged heart and soul.

Let’s hear it for those all people who are above the fray and the human condition. Yes, we are childish, inmature, stupid and believe in some sort of justice. Let’s hear it for all of the people who know what’s wrong with the rest of us and can in a minute explain our motives. Keep up your good work and let us, immature damaged souls lament our plight of being human. I would ask only that all the babble take place after violence to a loved one.

@NVOldGuy: 1) It is not childish or immature to believe in justice. But as I tell my children often, justice is everyone getting what they need, not everyone getting the same thing. Eye-for-an-eye doesn’t get people what they need. Though it feels that way from the pain, I believe. 2) You have no idea what violence my loved ones have suffered from, so don’t make those assumptions.

@NVOldGuy and jacksonRice: I don’t think the question has to be about retribution vs. rehabilitation. The support for capital punishment on this thread seems to be based in the pain and needs of the people who survive the violence (the discussion hasn’t focused on the possibility or not for rehabilitation). I’d argue that survivors’ healing is contributed to by acts of love, not violence. How can a wounded soul be healed by supporting ultimate violence to another?

I give up. You people are right and of course I am way off base because my beliefs don’t go with yours. Did I make assumptions? This is just another case of,” Agree with me or you’re a nut and can’t know what you’re talking about. I am right and if you don’t agree, you are just crazy and stupid etc.” I will leave the discussion to you who have all the answers and can judge those who don’t agree.

@NVOldGuy: I never maintained that you had to agree with me, otherwise I’d write you off as a crazy or stupid. If fact, you were the one who called others’ comments “babble”.

Maybe we’re assuming different purposes for being here . I’m maintaining a position in an argument, elaborating my views. It’s called civil intellectual discourse. Just because I don’t stop when someone uses sarcasm and faux self-deprecating mockery doesn’t mean I’m judging or unwilling to talk to folks who disagree.